Posted
by
timothyon Saturday April 05, 2014 @08:18PM
from the now-it's-ours dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As if the automated take downs on Youtube weren't already bad enough, today fans of the popular open source 3D software Blender were greeted by a copyright take down notice for their third open movie, Sintel, despite it being released under a Creative Commons license: 'This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.' It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool."

https://cloud.blender.org/goos... [blender.org]
For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal;-)
Of course there are also cheaper deals.

This. I understand the need for corporations to be able to take down entire movie content et al from being served in public, as much as we would like things for free, movies do cost, there needs to be profit to get them funded etc.

However...

The pendulum is on the movie producers side right now, and they are shilling legitimate content etc as much as possible, and would rather have something by default taken down incorrectly than do their due diligence. The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued without honest and reasonable proof that the correct steps have been taken to identify illegitimate content according to the laws, the party requesting the unlawful removal of content should become liable for any damages that occur from the takedown, and that those damages should be commensurate with the calculations used when movies are pirated, as obviously it is the same goods we are speaking of.

The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued

When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.

That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.

I make videos based on public domain classical music so my channel gets hit with copyright claims all the time. The thing that bugs me the most about the whole process is that the claimant doesn't have to respond to disputes for 30 days and a lot of times the claimant will wait until the 29th day then do something called a "reinstatement" which can take another 30 days to dispute. It's ridiculous. After the dispute is won and the video is re-monetized, it's a crap-shoot for how long it will stay undisputed because there are hundreds of matching recordings in the content tracking system and they only get flagged one at a time. You can't dispute them all at the same time, and each dispute can take 60 days to resolve. I estimate the most popular videos on my channel are in dispute 50% to 75% of the time they're up. If they would just shorten that 30 days to something more reasonable, like 7 days (which is about how long it takes the companies that are on it to respond), I'd be a lot happier.

Not only do they usually not keep you from continuing your business until the decision, which happens to come at a MUCH faster pace than any DMCA takedown revert I have ever heard about, there's also provision that you get reimbursed for your losses if you have been accused wrongly, something the DMCA is sorely missing.

In a nutshell, provided you have the deep enough pockets, you can sink a potential competitor using the DMCA. By the time he could possibly retaliate or even start trying to get back at you, he's been out of business for years.

Who could have predicted that replacing innovation with vendor lock-in could fail?

I think anyone but people with a MBA. Sometimes it seems that part of the MBA curriculum is replacing common sense in a person with hubris and the thinking that people would do what they themselves would never do, because they think everyone's stupider than them.

IANAL, but shouldn't this qualify as perjury? Sony needs to certify in their automated DMCA request that they, in fact, own the rights to the content in question, under the penalty of perjury. Someone really needs to take the big studios to court for this sort of abuse, otherwise it won't stop.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

Just to expand on the process, when a video is first hit with the claim, you can dispute it within YouTube, and have to provide an explanation. What they *don't* tell you is that the company who made the claim (which would be Sony in this case) is the one who reviews it and makes a determination.

If they deny your dispute, you can then appeal from within the YouTube interface, again stating an explanation about why your content is your own, or fair use, or whatever. But this time you get to read a lot more legal scare stuff, AND you have to provide your address & phone number along with the appeal. Yet again, the claimant is the one who reviews this. At this point they either have to retract their claim, or send a formal DMCA takedown notice to keep your video down. Or I suppose they could just directly sue you now that they have your info.

If they go the DMCA takedown route at that point, that's where you can file a DMCA counter-notice, and they'll have to bring you to court if they want to pursue things further. Since you gave them your address & number during step 2, you won't be hard to track down.

The system is completely stacked in favor of the big media companies, and I'm sure it works well for them. Make claims on all kinds of content, and the vast majority of people will be too afraid to challenge it, and many of those people might even assume that they were in the wrong even if they weren't. Next benefit is that the claimant's allowed to put advertising/etc on the video that Joe User made and profit from it. And the very existence of steps #1 and #2 allows big media to skirt around the risks of sending false DMCA notices.

So... why not small claims?
If every person who was in the right on YouTube filed a small claims case against a media entity, they could be bled to death through a thousand cuts, and it would either put a stop to the practice, or make judges aware that the big media companies are abusing their power, which could be very helpful once someone wants to do a class action to stop what is essentially private taxation (running ads on independently produced content) for the benefit of corporations.
I mean, serio

In some countries, it would be obtaining a service (the takedown) based upon a false and fraudulent pretense. That's a criminal offence, and an injured party can call upon the Crown to prosecute it as such. Consult a lawyer in the jurisdiction in question, get a quote and take them with you to the fraud squad, to ensure the process happens correctly. It's arguably hard to do correctly in the U.S, as suggested by the low number of convictions reported...

Given that this is done by US companies operating under a US law, I'm pretty sure they'd give exactly zero shits if they got a false pretense claim from some other country. At the most, if it looked like it was going to get above the small claims level in that country, they'd pay a few thousand $ settlement fee (ie: basically meaningless to Sony or whoever) and continue on with business as usual.

Its basically impossible (by design) for an individual to fight copyright claims. Enough individuals getting to

The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.

And now Sony cannot legally use the Sintel short. They broke the Creative Commons license by claiming ownership, which severs the license. Any and all use of the Sintel short by Sony from now on is unlicensed, i.e. pirate copying.And no, there is no provision in the CC license for sayihng "oops" to get the license reactivated. They are in breach, and need to get a new license from the copyright holders before they can continue using it.

And who's going to stop them? Its one thing to say its illegal.. its quite another to enforce that claim, even if you're technically true. That's the whole problem with the current copyright system (and much of the legal system in general) -- money makes the laws and money enforces the laws. Justice gets to sit in a corner and sulk with the rest of us.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html - "Linux's Hit Men -... So far, none of the Free Software Foundation’s targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he’s not teaching classes at Columbia University. "

That eleven year old article is written from the POV that the FSF is the bad guy for enforcing the GPL and that somehow forcing companies to comply goes against the very idea of free open source software. Forbes has concluded it is bad to attempt to enforce copyrights and license agreements when it would force a large corporation to actually do what the license requires because it would open them up to competition. It complete ignores the option to not use GPL code; except for a passing note about some poor company that estimated it lost $10 million because it they licensed code and then scrapped the project and went to a BSD license when they didn't like the terms of the original license.

It's really simple. If you don't want to share don't use GPL software. Use a BSD style license or develop proprietary code if you are worried about cloners. If your code is so integral to your product that releasing it would allow cloners to capture much of the market you probably shouldn't use the GPL or rethink your product. Apple probably chose the BSD license, in part, because it allowed them to develop an OS that had a stable core without having to open up their OS to cloners. They can share what they feel is appropriate and maintain MacOS unique to Apple. No one is stopping other companies from doing this; and Forbes' claim the FSF is demanding companies "burn down [their] house, or at the very least share it with cloners" is pure FUD. CISCO seemed to survive OK by complying with the GPL after FSF' lawsuit.

Do we know this is the result of a DMCA request? Doesn't Youtube give studios like Sony an interface to take down what they want? So then it's back to being as annoying as hell but not legally actionable in any way:-(.

Doesn't specifically say its under the DMCA, but claiming and attempting to enforce copyright on content you don't own is definitely illegal regardless of the DMCA.

Sony and the other big companies are basically letting robots continuously break the law for them and operating under the principle that the people affected will either a) be small enough that they can't afford to mount a significant defense or b) be big enough that they'll contact Sony directly and "work things out" before getting legal entities

Well, first of all many major copyright holders have special deals with YouTube where they don't actually send DMCA requests. In that case it's just a private agreement between Sony and YouTube on content monitoring, at best you have a slander suit but no basis for a perjury. Secondly, they may have a legal claim to copyright on the whole clip reel as a collection - basically the selection and composition of clips - and that's enough to get them out of the perjury part. In generic terms, "Under penatlity of

Well, first of all many major copyright holders have special deals with YouTube where they don't actually send DMCA requests. In that case it's just a private agreement between Sony and YouTube on content monitoring, at best you have a slander suit but no basis for a perjury. Secondly, they may have a legal claim to copyright on the whole clip reel as a collection - basically the selection and composition of clips - and that's enough to get them out of the perjury part. In generic terms, "Under penatlity of perjury, we are the copyright holders of movie X. We believe that the posted scene Y is in violation of our copyright on X." Even if that last part is wrong because it's freely licensed or in the public domain or for some other reason not eligible for copyright it's not under perjury. It sucks, but any competent lawyer will manage to wiggle Sony out of any trouble.

The youtube page in fact says: "This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."

Assuming they're as careful with their language as I am, that says the Sony, not Youtube, initiated the takedown.

Flagging is also slang for reporting user contributions that violate terms of service. Thus "false flagging" means a false report of such a violation. The meaning you refer to is more often called a "Joe job" on the net.

The proper term is "Slander of Title". Basically, Sony claimed the Protected Work was theirs wherein they're merely licensing it for their 4K demo content. Under CC Attribution 3.0, they can't claim anything as their own work, they have to attribute the content to the original rights holders, and can't place any additional restrictions on the further publication of the content (i.e. You can't tell someone to do a takedown on the content, either as a DMCA or as a reciprocal agreement as Sony has with Google on YouTube. Violates the restrictions clause and attempts to claim sole rights over the content- you can't claim sole rights over your derivative work per license which would be the only way you could legitimately do a takedown.)

This means they are no longer licensed to the content in question.

Each and every copy they distributed or intend to distribute of the protected work in question, Sintel, is now a willful copyright infringement on Sony's part. Seems to me that the Blender project needs to retain counsel and sue for the Statutory Damages for this...which amounts to $150,000, per each copy done without licensing.

It looks like this is just a Youtube thing, that no legal action was taken at all. It was an agreement between two private companies (Sony and Google), to take down content that Sony doesn't like. That isn't illegal, because Google owns the site.

and have Sony state under oath why they think the video is theirs. Seems Sony is excertising ownership right over the video, seems to me that's IP theft by Sony. After all according to the gove and media IP theft is the biggest danger to American way of life since the nuclear communist threat.

Please note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. Where YouTube has a good faith belief that a person is materially misrepresenting that material or activity is infringing of their rights or the right of a copyright owner for whom they are authorized to act, YouTube may, in its discretion, not remove the cited content. In this case, we will notify the complainant.

I hope to see a Defamation/Libel case coming to a court room near you!

There are better alternatives, like Archive.org--especially for Libre/Opensource projects. I would not bother with Youtube, which is riddled with ads anyway. Archive.org has a mandate to serve the public, Youtube has a mandate to line the pockets of the rich. I'll take Archive.org. The Blender team should have known better.

YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.

I call bullshit on this one. Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.

Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.

I have a rather more cynical view of that. Better latency, HD, longer videos and live streaming are basically all just effects of one good thing, better servers. That's probably the only good thing that Google has given to Youtube.

I don't count the partnership program as good. Basically it radically influences channel content for the worse. Either it introduces money, which ruins everything*, or it introduces legal protection from U.S. entities which makes for some pretty bland content**.

* I'm a viewer of some channels that thrive on the partnership program (Drive Network and TotalBiscuit for example) and they all do worse and worse the more money is involved. Instead of being fueled by passion they are fueled by ratings and money. Which is what utterly killed Hollywood and Television for me and got me into Youtube in the first place. Examples from the Drive Network: the three-minute car reviews, which are blatantly not at home on that channel, and the product placement (like Pirelli) / advertisement videos that pop up every once in a while. Examples from TB: where to even begin. Makes videos based solely on the highest ratings, to the point where it comes close to ruining his personal life. Adjusts video content and kills off series based on how much revenue they bring in and not based on what he enjoys playing/shooting, which blatantly shows in his commentary.

** Partnership channels are pretty strictly regulated in regards to what they can show in their videos. They are trying to dodge takedown requests like this one and copyright strikes which may stop their cash intake. So... anything remotely inflammatory or controversial that could be in any way interpreted as slander, copyright infringement, etc... just won't appear on a channel like this any more.

Also: the GP was right about the ridiculous "updates". They're almost all terrible. The layout changes, the default setting changes, the player changes... Just the facts that buffering still doesn't work, quality settings were broken for months, subscriptions break all the time, are all great examples of the incompetency of the devs or the misguided priorities over there. Youtube is constantly becoming more corporate, better at generating revenue, and worse for the users. And users hate it more all the time and only use it because hardly anyone could ever afford to make a better Youtube clone.

The greatest thing Youtube has introduced lately is HTML5 compatibility and I have complete confidence Youtube could've and would've implemented that without Google's "help".

Which is broken by design, since they don't need to file suit to get the content removed to begin with, which, at the very least, they should. Instead, they get to fire off takedown notices, which websites have to comply with if they want safe harbor, with impunity, or at least until someone challenges them in court, but even then, it's unlikely they'll actually get in real trouble due to the way the DMCA was written.

Also, if you file suit against them, it would be the government that would decide the resul

False takedown claim, claimant's copyright that was reportedly infringed immediately turned over to public domain, and can NEVER be returned to claimants.This would apply even if the claimant is just a front company hired to look for violations, they would need to be bonded and insured for billions in losses.

As asked correctly by the parent poster, how would that work in false ownership claims? I'd say they'd have to pay for the production of said item to the party that they wronged by their claim, since putting the production in public domain would only hurt the actual owner. Make false claims hurt so much that people will think twice before submitting one.

Read the GP Again... "claimant's copyright that was reportedly infringed immediately turned over to public domain". The claimant must, even with the fucked up copyright laws we still have, specify what copyright they own is being violated. So even in a false claim, Asshat Corp asserts you've violated their copyright on A, in your work B, they lose copyright on A. Your work, B, is unaffected. This particular case is very different from your normal take down request though, since Asshat Corp has taken your wo

Because of multiple lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the recording industry, Google has struck this deal with major stakeholders whereby they can basically bypass what limited due process exists in the DMCA and takedown videos on a whim.

You have no recourse under this system because the DMCA isn't being invoked by these media companies where there is an ability to file a DMCA counter-notice and sue for damages for false copyright assertions.

Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.

Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.

Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.

Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!

All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.

Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!

I honestly thought of doing something along those lines. But we're talking pennies barely worth small claims court here (going by what Google normally pays out for YT revenue sharing). And at the end of the day, such a suit might even end up dismissed with a simple "well, you should have read the fine print and not posted the video" or some such, because it's true, my company doesn't own the audio content, my friend does and he has a contract with the publishing company so I assume they would argue they ar

This isn't a problem with Google this is a problem with you, your friend and his publisher. They added the video to the list of media they owned, did they do that because your friend told them they could? Did they do it without his knowlege? What does his contract with the publisher say, they very well may own the copyright to that video now. As far as Google is concerned one person owns that video and the publishing company is a more convincing argument than 'the guys who filmed and editied it for free.' C

I've had similar experiences. Three times I've invoked the wrath of the youtube content ID system.

The first I'll let them have: The video was clear infringement, albeit of a video that the copyright holder at the time refused to publish. A certain very early Disney cartoon that cast their beloved Micky in a rather bad light. I used it to demonstrate some video restoration techniques.

The second was clear fair use. I used about thirty seconds of footage from a twenty-minute cartoon, with dubbed-over music, in order to poke fun at certain visual elements. No matter. Interestingly, this wasn't automated: The copyright holder for the cartoon actually had someone send a takedown notice. I'm guessing I offended an executive.

The third one was inexcusable: Content-ID picked up the infringement of audio, but for music that was so ancient (Any older and it'd be on wax cylinder!) as to be public domain even in the US. I looked into it - a collecter's society had claimed the rights to it, even though the composer was dead more than seventy years ago. I attempted to appeal this one, but there just isn't an appeal option. There's nothing you can use. I tried three times to contact an actual human at youtube to explain the situation, but never even got a reply. If it's a DMCA takedown (As in case two) you can file a counterclaim, but this was Content-ID: Its word is final and beyond contest.

Let's not forget that's the hubris and presumptuousness that is required to assume that a video is worthless except for the copyrighted audio track within.At the very least, Google's Content-ID system should split the revenue sharing 50-50 between the Content ID owner the owner of the video. Neither could exist without the other.

While a record company may claim that no one would watch the video were it not for the soundtrack (and this does happen a lot on YouTube, where people just upload a song and add a

I feel your pain, but I'm not sure the people complaining in this thread understand the sheer size of YouTube. It's literally the entire worlds video repository. There are over 100 hours of video uploaded every minute. Over 100 hours! Even if YouTube employed an entire army of specialised copyright lawyers trained in the international nuances of fair use, there's no possible way the enormous number of disputes could ever be mediated in a fair way.

Yet the search engine division refuses to penalise pirate sites or remove them from the rankings, and even when forced to by law they put up the DMCA informational notice complete with the removed links as a soft of 'fuck you' to the copyright holder.

There's clearly a different approach to copyright in different divisions.

Yeah, that was unclear... I meant to say that Google fights authority for a lot of things, but not this, because in this case, they have a stake in not fighting it. So it's foolhardy to look at Google and think they are a champion for just causes, which is how they first looked to most people in the earlier days.

I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor. The point of the post is to show how the principle of the system is flawed and stacked against the common person, which is what YouTube was ori

I don't think that's accurate. The DMCA creates a 'safe haven' for content sites like Youtube, it essentially says, "if you takedown when someone tells you that their content is on your website, then you can't be sued." Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).

The case here is that the studios have made an agreement with Google: they don't have to file a DMCA takedown request at all. They tell Google they don't like it, and they have two options: take all ad profits from the content, or have it taken down. "Take all ad profits from the content" is definitely not part of the DMCA, that's something extra Google came up with (I presume, maybe it was a studio idea).

Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).

In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown pr

No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.

I'm not sure this is accurate, the DMCA merely protects the hosting service from liability. It has nothing to do with burden of proof. The hosting service doesn't need to remove the content, but then they are liable to defend it in court.

The hosting company needs to notify the person who uploaded the content, and the person who uploaded it can respond without needing proof, merely promising that they own the content (or have it licensed or whatever). After that (and IMO an unreasonably long delay), it mu

You know that copyright itself is not criminal law? It's civil law, and there the concept of "guilt" in a criminal sense doesn't exist. There is damage, and there is the damaged party, and if the damaged party can show they lost something (money, value, integrity), they are entitled the other party stopping whatever caused the damage and compensation for the losses. And for that, preponderance of evidence is sufficient. All you have to show is that you lost something and that the action (or non-action, pres

Google trying to push everyone onto G+ was my reason to throw YouTube in the crapper... and the only reason why I even looked for other services, which turned out to be the best move I ever made concerning my online viewing habits.

So, in a twisted kind of way, I think I have to thank Google for trying to push G+ onto their YouTube users. Without, we probably would never have bothered to learn that there's other, and better, ways to get your daily dose of videos.

Have you used YouTube lately? It used to be jammed with 1 hit wonders, spam and viral crap. Now YouTube is rewarding and encouraging people to basicly start their own TV show. Of those that are doing so the percentage of intelligent and usefull shows is WAY higher than you find on any TV network, none of it would have happened without Google to back it up.

The summary is quite clear.Blender produced the video, Sintel, and publish it to Youtube under the creative commons license.Sony reuses the video as part of their 4k marketing material.Sony provides youtube with a "reference" copy of their marketing material, and tells youtube to find copies of the material and to exercise Sony's rights over it.Youtube finds the original Sintel video and matches it to a "reference" copyrighted work (Sony's marketing material).Youtube arranges for forced commercial licensing of the Blender video with proceeds going to Sony.